[CQ-Contest] Re: Sleep Deprivation

[k8do]

At your and my age, simply giving up 3 hours of operating for some sleep
will do more than any chemicals...

Denny  - Old ER doc, now just a brain dead GP...
----- Original Message -----
From: "spa" <spa at tri.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 3:22 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: Sleep Deprivation


>
> I'm sitting here doing obstetrical anesthesia (epidurals) at 2 AM local
> and avoiding sugar or caffeine as I want to sleep when morning comes and
> a new shift comes in.  Also, post-MI and a couple of stents the past
> year at age 62 am sort of advised to avoid that stuff:  the manditory
> off periods are a blessing.
>
> Here's my spin on the graph:
>
> I'm assuming that the study started in the morning.  Performance
> improved for both the control group and the (to be) caffeine group for
> about 14 hours.  Maybe a training effect or that people do that.  At 14
> hours, guessing 10 PM performance took a dive as would be expected and
> then recovered when the new cycle came around again and then really
> tanked the next night.  The caffeine group got a very good response to
> treatment as we sort of expected.  No rocket science here.  Would have
> been neat to see what happened the next cycle.  As an aside, one of my
> colleagues mentioned that the SnoreX stuff  you  see advertised on TV
> has the advertised effect for about 2 hours and then the patients become
> much, much worse to the point of apnea.  I have no data on that, but
> reportedly the work was done at the Duke Sleep Lab.
>
> For the best kick, get off all caffeine for a while, even decaffeinated
> tea or coffee has about 1/3 the normal dose.  Careful when you get back
> on as sleep deprivation and caffeine can cause heart palpatations and we
> often give it when doing ElectroShock Therapy to lower the seizure
> threshold.
>
> As I recall, the German Army in WW2 used methamphetamine as a stimulant
> (available on any back alley!) for such situations.  Not recommended!
>
> N0UU
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>
>


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From Steve, IK4WMH" <topdxer at tin.it  Mon Oct  8 13:53:02 2001
From: Steve, IK4WMH" <topdxer at tin.it (Steve, IK4WMH)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 13:53:02 +0100
Subject: Re[2]: [CQ-Contest] CQ Phone Test.
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011007235045.02414660 at mail>
References: <3.0.5.32.20011006220259.0094da90 at pop.abs.adelphia.net>
 <000701c14f22$16239e80$3f502104 at vz.dsl.genuity.net>
 <5.1.0.14.1.20011007235045.02414660 at mail>
Message-ID: <464307530.20011008135302 at tin.it>


Hello Jerry,

Monday, October 08, 2001, 4:52:07 AM, you wrote:

JF> Here in the states, we apparently use different math than you guys across 
JF> the pond.

JF> Here, we lose about 45,000 people each year in car accidents out of 300 
JF> million of us. That is 1 person in 6700 that dies each year. Assume you are 
JF> exposed at that same risk for 67 years, and your odds drop to 1 in 100 
JF> chance of dying in a car accident in your lifetime.

So, according to your math, if one could live for 6800 years his
chance of dying in a car accident would be more than 100 percent!

I believe this is contrary to the probability theory, hi.


--------------------------------------------------
I will not grease the monkey bars
--------------------------------------------------

Ciao.
          Steve, IK4WMH
          mailto:topdxer at tin.it


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com